The Redwood chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is honoring the Humboldt County Library for protecting library users’ privacy against searches called for by the USA Patriot Act.
Union representatives will present its Patriot Act Award to Library Director Carolyn Stacey at the Red Lion Inn on Thursday evening.
times-standard.com Has The Story.
“We hope to make it a coveted award, that people strive to be as patriotic as possible to receive it,” Allbright said.Update: 05/06 12:11 EST by B: link fixed.
Link to Story
Blake,
The link to the story goes back to lisnews.com not to the story.
Gayle Keresey
ACLU, ALA, NEA — 3 of a kind
Are we surprised?!! Of course the ACLU would oppose the U.S. Government–just like it opposes the general public on most issues where locals want to be in control of schools, libraries, and other public entities.
And wouldn’t it be just like a public library, the bulk of which are run by anti-public, anti-filters, anti-morals, flaming left-wingers to be the VERY FIRST RECIPIENT of the ACLU award!!
Congratulations Humboldt County Library. You’ve fulfilled your mission! (sic)
Re:ACLU, ALA, NEA — 3 of a kind
Okay, I’m confused.
According to your comment, you’re angry at the ACLU and ALA for opposing “local control.”
According to your comment, You’re angry at the ACLU and ALA for opposing the U.S. government in regards to the Patriot Act and CIPA.
Perhaps you’d care to explain how these two laws, both of which greatly increase the power of the federal government to dictate policy to individual libraries, amount to “local control.”
Re:ACLU, ALA, NEA — 3 of a kind
Actually, what the ACLU opposes is non-democratic government, bad laws that strip people of their constitutional rights and freedoms, and the control of public entities that derives from viewpoint discrimination.
And I know that right- to ultra-right wing nuts don’t want to consider this fact, but the ACLU will represent anybody, regardless of their ideology, including ultra-conservative lunatics. Which they have done/are doing in a Church/State Separation violation case. The ACLU is not there to take sides so much as to ensure the playing field is level.
Of course, that really galls right-wing nuts who think they have some kind of divine right to attack from the high ground.
Re:ACLU, ALA, NEA — 3 of a kind
–> Of course, that really galls right-wing nuts who think they have some kind of divine right to attack from the high ground.
Guilty as charged!!
What I’m saying is that the ACLU (like the ALA and NEA) all are coming from a political bias no less radical than my own–in the name of “individual rights” or whatever, BUT THEY HIDE BEHIND THEIR SMOKE SCREEN OF BEING A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION, or in the case of the ACLU, BEING A PROTECTOR OF FREEDOMS. In fact, they think they have a “divine right” to fight to prevent locals from control of their own public (and private) schools and libraries. And the federal government… normally looked to as the provider of everything from soup to nuts–well, when it tries to do something for national defense–is opposed because it is TOO patriotic.
Take John Kerry’s fighting in Vietnam for example (since Fang Face seems to like “library off-topic subjects”)… at the time we were fighting there, the U.S. was just there for “imperialistic reasons” (according to the left-wingers)… but NOW he’s a great hero for “defending the U.S.”
I stand by my statement that all 3 are “left-wing” loonies–even though they won’t admit it!!
Re:ACLU, ALA, NEA — 3 of a kind
Except that the ACLU will protect you as much as they will protect anybody. You want to implement your controls for the benefit of a select few.
General public
I don’t see how the ACLU taking the side of members of the general public (e.g., the Baptist folks who were denied a permit to use an existing church building) against a unit of government constitutes “opposing” the general public. Defending the rights of individual citizens against the tyranny of the majority isn’t exactly a radical, anti-public, or left-wing concept.
Re:ACLU, ALA, NEA — 3 of a kind
Except that the ACLU will protect you as much as they will protect anybody.
Absolutely. But I would prefer that my legal counsel have the moral fiber to pass on protecting the “right” of NAMBLA sickos to set web bait and share “how to” info for 7 year old boys.
Re:General public
OH FIDDLE… I just spent 2 hours working up a highly documented response to this with links from their website, and then accidentally closed my browser window! — GRRR!!
But, my response (with comments) included some of the following items:
Now, did someone ask me if the ACLU was kookie (liberal)?
Re:ACLU, ALA, NEA — 3 of a kind
If he doesn’t have the moral fiber to protect the sickos then he doesn’t have the moral fiber to protect you. But don’t worry about that. When your jack-booted lackeys of the Republican National Guard come to drag you in front of the Inquisitor, you will be perfectly at liberty to represent yourself.